CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR - A Movie Review

SPOILER ALERT - This review will contain hardcore spoilers for a movie that just came out a few days ago, so seriously, be forewarned about reading this if you haven't seen the movie. 

As always, first, a history lesson. Perhaps as soon as we knew Marvel studios big plan for bringing their superheroes together in the same cinematic universe, comic readers began licking their chops at the prospect of one day seeing a live-action version of the 2006 comic miniseries, Civil War.

In that story arc, which pitted hero against hero, a horrific disaster turned the US population against superheroes almost overnight. Demanding some political response, the American government, backed by Tony Stark, Reed Richards, and Hank Pym, began to institute the Superhero Registration Act. Go public with your identity, take a government paycheck, accept oversight, and be legal. Iron Man became the public face of the SHRA. Spider-man unmasked on live TV. The X-men stayed neutral. But Captain America fought the SHRA, tooth and nail. He assembled a group of other heroes who didn't want to give up their secret identities, and violently battled almost to the brink of what would be a very hollow victory. Seeing all the damage and destruction hero fighting hero caused, Cap surrenders, turns himself into the police...and is assassinated. Such a massive story, so many characters. Was this thing even filmable?

A dozen successful Marvel studios films, the reacquistion to the rights of a major character, and almost ten years later, the answer is yes. When 2014 saw the announcement that not only would Robert Downey Jr be featured in the third Captain America movie, but that it would indeed be an adaptation of 'Civil War', anticipation exploded. Early 2015 excited Marvel fans once again, as Marvel studios announced they'd reached a deal with Sony Pictures for the rights to use Spider-man in the MCU. His debut appearance would be in 'Civil War'. The then-unreleased 'Age of Ultron' was almost eclipsed by excitement for this nerdy dream scenario. Casting reports saw Avenger after Avenger added to the battlefield. The Russo Brothers, directors of the critically acclaimed previous installment, were set to top themselves, as the somber first trailer dropped in late 2015. So much had to come together just right for this film to be made, and the final result is a fun, exciting exhilarating story that, while it packs some emotional punches, it never quite feels like it's throwing its full weight at you.

Tom Holland is great as the new Spider-man.

There are several things to really like, or even love about 'Captain America: Civil War'. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr. turn in their best performances as Steve Rogers and Tony Stark, respectively. They give the entire movie a lived-in feeling. Downey, especially brings something new to this performance. For the first time, Stark is mentally in a really bad place. He's not able to pretend to be the freewheelin' playboy anymore, instead carrying the weight of his own failure with the Ultron disaster, and the end of his relationship with Pepper. Guilt is his primary motivation throughout this movie, and he portrays it well. The rest of the returning cast (Anthony Mackie, Don Cheadle, Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olson, Paul Rudd, Paul Bettany, Emily VanCamp, Scarlett Johansson, William Hurt) bring chemistry and a familiarity with one another to the screen in a way that makes it feel like a family. This is the closest we've come to seeing the day to day life of The Avengers, and it's cool to see them just hang out, try to process the amazing and terrible things they see. Though there are several heavy moments, the movie is surprisingly light-hearted for much of the time, largely due to the interaction of all these characters who know each other well enough to make a joke. (Jokes that, unlike Whedon's incessant quips, seem natural and organic, and therefore fit better into the context of the movie.)

Making his first appearance in a team-up movie, the addition of Ant-man to the roster of superheroes works very well because A) he's actually quite powerful and B) Paul Rudd is just crazy charming and likeable. Likewise, Spider-man is a really just...cool addition to the cast, though he's not really essential to the story. Were he removed from the plot, it would more or less be the same. This doesn't doom the movie, though. It's very much icing on the cake.

Chadwick Boseman kicks ass as Black Panther

Perhaps oddly, in a movie that promises a Civil War among a dozen heroes we've already grown to know and love, the character we are most emotionally invested in is a new one: King T'challa, the Black Panther. The new monarch of the fictional African country of Wakanda. Chadwick Boseman totally owns this role. After his father is assassinated, purportedly by the Winter Soldier, T'challa goes on a literal one-man revenge mission, giving Boseman plenty of chances to show off his acting chops. While Iron Man and Captain America are duking it out, we're patiently waiting for Boseman to steal another scene with his low, exotic voice, and carefully chosen words. He often across as someone with a older, wiser man's countenance, combined with a younger man's temper. Simply put, he's a very dangerous dude.

Also surprising is the villain of the film. Helmut Zemo (played by Daniel Bruhl) spends most of the movie shrouded in mystery. Though we at first think he's Hydra, he cares nothing for them or their mission. Once we find out he's Sokovian, he counters that the nation meant nothing to him. But when we are finally told that his entire family was killed during the destruction of the city, we find a shocking amount of pity for this guy. He goes to extreme and intricate measures to seek his vengeance, and once it's done, sits down with a gun beneath his chin.

These are the strongest qualities of 'Civil War'. Good characters, solid acting, a good, complex villain, and some really, really kick-ass action. But while they're enough to make this movie pretty damn good, it stops short of the greatness it could have achieved.

While it may be unfair to compare a movie to the book it's based on, I think comparing it to a comic is more fair. A comic is a visual medium, and in that way, closer to movies than books. The Marvel comics had decades of stories to build on to make the Civil War emotionally devastating based solely on the fact heroes were fighting heroes. But that's not the only thing the comic relied on. It showed us heroes fighting heroes, tooth and nail, with ruthlessness, because both sides believed completely that their side was right. A civil war, by its nature, should and will always be devastating, and the cause of it should and will rupture relationships immediately. This movie never does that. It's main inciting incident, while it creates complications and disagreements, does not itself breed the war.

When this...

After a New Avengers mission goes mostly right, but in a very public way, horribly wrong, Captain America and his new team, Falcon, Black Widow, Scarlet Witch, Vision and War Machine find themselves in the crosshairs of a political hurricane. The public outcry leads to the nations of the world creating the Sokovia Accords, essentially putting the Avengers under the control of the UN.

While the differences of opinion on the SHRA is what led to the comics Civil War, the Sokovia Accords don't do much besides hamstring Cap's team who do not want to be put under the yoke of politicians who may or may not have their own agendas. And the Accords, unlike the SHRA, are not at the heart of the disagreement between Team Stark and Team Rogers. Bucky is what ends up forcing partners to come to blows.

This is perhaps part of the problem - most of the movie is spent with Cap defending a Bucky who we know almost from the outset is innocent. Stark is pursuing Cap and Bucky not because he truly believes that the Accords are right - he even admits he's got no other ideas, and these Accords can be changed to make them more agreeable to Rogers - but because he wants to quiet the political firestorm that is threatening to consume the entire team. But wars aren't fought over ideological disagreements - they're fought when politics fail and emotions rule.

Devolves into this...sadface.

So when it finally does become emotional for the three main characters, it's far too late in the movie. In by far the film's strongest sequence, Bucky is revealed to have killed Howard and Maria Stark, leading Tony into a rage-fueled attack on both Barnes and Rogers. This is the movie at its best. This is what I expected the entire film to be - people actually fighting a battle that they want to win, not a war to stall, or just to capture the enemy; a war to destroy the enemy. This is what the comics became, and why the ending of that miniseries was so devastating. And though this movie ends with the heroes dispersed, hiding out, broken and nursing wounds, the Russos avoid leaving things in too grim a state. There is the distinct impression that most of the wounds will heal fairly quickly, and even Rhodey's paralysis, by far the most major wound, is downplayed as much as possible.

The Russos had a very large hill to climb in making this movie. Not only were they adapting a seminal graphic novel, they were left holding the bag for Joss Whedon. Whedon could have easily set things up for this battle, and probably should have towards the end of 'Age of Ultron'. But he didn't. So the Russos were coming in having to create enough tension to start a war where there had previously only been jokes and convivial bickering. And if we look at the three phases of the MCU as we would a traditional three act story, 'Civil War' feels far more like a close to Act Two than 'Age of Ultron' ever did. So in that respect, they quite succeeded.

But still, the way I see it, if you're going to adapt one of the greatest Marvel stories ever into a film, it has to hit with the same force. And it just doesn't. Cap sends a nice letter and a phone to Tony, who tacitly forgives his friend, as evidenced by his chuckle and decision to futz with Thunderbolt Ross. People died in the Civil War comics. Families were broken, bonds of friendship were destroyed. The film doesn't hit the same level of import that is demanded of it just by using the phrase "civil war". But I don't put that entirely on the Russos. I've seen enough interviews with them to know that they take their job and the material they adapt very seriously. I feel like this is a case of Marvel perhaps fearing the general public might not respond so favorably to a Marvel film that really plumbing the depths of emotion. Say what you want about the shortcomings of 'Batman v Superman' but so many of the criticisms lobbed against it were variations of "it's just too dark! too serious!". Marvel has a right to worry that their franchises would be endangered by starting to mine the territory typically afforded to the DC and X-men films. And this time, their concerns show up in a noticeably restrained movie.

Look, 'Captain America: Civil War' is a really fun and enjoyable movie, and it nails plenty of really great moments, and I think the Russos hit it as high as they aimed. I just think maybe they should have aimed higher. It could have really been a special movie, then. Dark Knight territory.


FINAL SCORE - 8.5/10

AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON - A Retro Review

The MCU's Phase Three kicks off this Friday (actually, Thursday evening) with 'Captain America: Civil War'. We here at PRC couldn't be more stoked about this movie, and we've been spending the last few weeks taking a look back at all the MCU movies that tie into 'Civil War'. Today's entry wraps up this look-back as we check out the climax of Phase Two, 'Avengers: Age of Ultron'.

You may have noticed by now that when I do these retro reviews, I tend to give some history on the project. Some backdrop for the lead-up and release of the movie. Sometimes it's just for color, sometimes it's tied directly to whatever my particular thesis for that critique is. This is a case of both, because this is not a strong movie, and maybe the expectations and demands put upon it played a part in that.

Following the runaway success of the first Avengers team-up, Marvel Studios had earned so much goodwill among its fanbase, that they could have done 'Avengers: Reading the Yellow Pages' and anticipation would still have been through the roof. Most people assumed that given his tease at the end of 'The Avengers', Thanos would be the main villain. However, in July 2013, MCU honcho Kevin Feige announced Joss Whedon was going to hold back on the Mad Titan, and pit the Earth's mightiest heroes against one of their deadliest foes - 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' was coming in Summer 2015.

Even though it was not a direct adaptation of 2012's comic arc of the same name, the fact that Ultron of the comics had just finished wiping out humanity sold him on die-hard fans as a worthy opponent for Earth's Mightiest Heroes. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this was one of the most anticipated movies of all time. The SDCC announcement and teaser footage was all but wiped from the internet, creating a sense of mystery and heightened demand for any glimpses of the film. When the first trailer hit, it broke YouTube records. The public thirst for all things Marvel reached fever pitch. Phase Three was announced nearly a year before Phase Two would even end. The hype could not have been bigger.

Then it was released. And for a while after 'Age of Ultron' came out, nobody wanted to admit the truth. For all the hope, the hype, the awesome trailers, the promise of a darker story with a nigh-invincible foe, the second Avengers film was just plain disappointing.

The initial response might have been to say to yourself "well, my expectations were just too high", and there's probably some truth to that. But there's another truth, too. It's just not a very good movie. It's not a wholly bad one either, but it damn sure isn't a good one.

There is something hollow and empty at the center of 'Age of Ultron'. From the opening sequence, the movie is almost too slick. The good guys toss around CGI bad guys in a way that makes everything seem more cartoonish than realistic, and is definitely a departure from the much more polished first film. So much is going on in nearly every frame of the opening battle that it is, at times, difficult to keep up with who's doing what to whom. There are shots of the Hulk and Iron Man that clearly look like unfinished work, and some rigging on Captain America that survived a digital eraser. Stuff like this makes the film feel rushed and slapped together.

And that, I think, points to a fundamental problem with this movie. Everything feels forced. The screenwriting is lazy and the story advances, whether or not it makes any sense at all. And unfortunately, it frequently make no sense. So the poor(ish, by Marvel standards) reception can't be blamed on too-high expectations. And if that's the case, then the blame must fall on director Joss Whedon. He wrote it, he directed it, all criticism is his. Maybe his heart wasn't in it, maybe he just ran out of ideas. But we'll get to his shortcomings in a little bit. For now, let's look at the story:

A would-be world conquerer, fueled by selfish rage, steals the film's macguffin, which turns out to be an infinity stone. There's a mid-movie squabble, in which the Hulk is out of control and must be subdued by one of his own teammates. A likeable supporting character is killed, and the villain has an army of paper soldiers that the Avengers must battle, but are not very tough. The primary villain has a plan for global domination that isn't terribly well thought out and has a glaring fatal flaw. Cap and Stark bicker until they get a pep talk from Nick Fury, put aside their differences, team up, and defeat the bad guy, with the help of a more in-control Hulk. Thanos shows up in the credits. Which Avengers movie am I talking about?

Even Ultron is confused by what he is.

While undeniably a retread, this story is advanced by the villainous robot Ultron (voiced by James Spader). Ultron is originally intended by Tony Stark and Bruce Banner to be a good guy, until he turns evil after he's given consciousness by...who exactly? The movie never stops to actually state that. Was it Stark and Banner? Was it the mind stone*? Aside from that, just what the hell does Ultron want? We're told very little about what his original purpose is, other than "global peacekeeping", but what does that entail? And once he's created, there are no growing pains. He is birthed, as it were, evil, with burning hatred for the Avengers, and Stark in particular. But no reason is ever really given for why he wants them all dead. And once that is done, then what? What is his endgame?

*unlike the tesseract (a.k.a. the space stone), which is more or less a key, the mind stone as a macguffin is much more problematic. Yes, I understand that it's a macguffin that is mostly just waiting around to be used during 'Infinity War', but still -  while it's ok to tease something for a future film, it's not ok to just flat out leave shit unexplained. Does the mind stone have a consciousness of its own? Does it have will? Did it create Ultron, or corrupt him? Why is Vision different from Ultron? Too many questions.

Ze twins.

Of course, Ultron is not the only character to suffer a lack of development. The Maximoff twins, Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda (Elizabeth Oslon) are, for two-thirds of the movie, painted as villains who team up with Ultron because of their vendetta against Tony Stark. But why? Because their parents were killed in a bombing and Stark Industries manufactured the bomb? That makes as much sense as someone who gets shot being angry at the bullet manufacturer. Once they figure out they're totally expendable to Ultron (because what bad guy ever really gives a shit about his henchmen?) they switch sides and help the Avengers. I guess their blood feud with Stark wasn't so deep, after all. The villain who kick starts the plot, Baron von Strucker (Thomas Kretschmann) may as well be just another faceless Hydra goon, as he only has a few minutes of screen time, and is killed off-screen (about which Stark has to make a joke) because...why?

I won't front. This was dope.

In addition to Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, the Vision (Paul Bettany) is a new addition to the team, but with a personality and abilities so nebulous, all we are given to go on is the fact that he can wield Mjolnir. About that... I won't lie, that shit was badass, but still...he is an artificial being, with no soul. Or is he? Does he have a soul? How can he be worthy if he's just an android**? We should have seen Ultron trying to hold Mjolnir and failing, so we can know the rules. Even Stark and Cap concede Vision's ability to do so doesn't mean much. Without fully knowing what he is - man or machine.

**Far too often, the team uses the term AI to describe what Ultron is. And I'm by no means an AI expert, but I think they're still misusing the term. Do they mean artificial consciousness? Or just intelligence? It's actually important in the case of this movie for two reasons - Ultron has emotions that counter his logic and reason, and Vision can lift Mjolnir. They should at least discuss it for a minute. 

One of the bigger "why is this really necessary?" moments in the movie, the Hulkbuster sequence is wonderful fun. It's a geek's paradise, seeing Stark in his suit, taking on one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel Universe, and holding his own! Triumphing, even! And it goes on for just...far too long. Stark fights him instead of just trying to get him out of the city. The one time he does, Hulk escapes and Stark never tries again. And this is problematic within the course of the movie itself. 'Age of Ultron' goes out of it's way to show the Avengers attempting to protect civilians from the destruction their battles create, but at some point, it just becomes tedious to see them shuttling bystanders out of danger's way.

With so many unfinished ideas, I'm not convinced Whedon really knew what to do with this story. And far too many times, his fingerprints are visible in the clay, so to speak. You can tell when he just wanted to make a joke. Like Maria Hill's explanation of the twins; "He's fast and she's weird." Well, that's just...wildly unhelpful in explaining the powers of Scarlet Witch, and not the only time he opts for humor instead of clarification or exposition. And you can tell that he really wanted some kind of romantic angle to explore. In one of the least convincing character pairings I can think of, Black Widow and Hulk are in some kind of weird and painfully uncomfortable flirtation. Their chemistry is so non-existent, that Whedon has to rely on other characters actually pointing out that they're being romantic. And he's not incapable of doing it. In just a few moments, you buy Jeremy Renner and Linda Cardellini as a married couple. So why did things feel so wrong with Romanoff and Banner?

We know from various interviews and articles that Whedon really fought to keep Barton's family and home in the movie. This is a 16 minute sequence that grinds the movie to a halt and the purpose it serves is unclear. Yes, the Avengers need a place to lay low after Hulk's freakout and Scarlet Witch's mindfuckery, but what do they gain from going to Barton's home? Other than some knowledge they didn't previously have, none of them have any sort of epiphany, or reach any sort of conclusion that the farmhouse specifically provides. Whedon fought for it because he wanted it, because he liked it - not because it was a particularly good or creative idea. It could have happened anywhere.

There are two "rules" of writing I think about when I think about Whedon; one is that every sentence should either reveal your characters or advance the plot; the second is that you can't be afraid to kill your darlings. And so much of this film is just that - Whedon opting to go with what he likes over what best serves the story. Jokes over exposition, forced characterization that comes out of nowhere, unnecessary subplots. After production, he took not so subtle jabs at Marvel Studios, claiming studio interference, blaming them for forcing changes. But in the end, Joss Whedon is still responsible for the finished product. He can blame them all he likes, but he didn't walk away. Edgar Wright walked away from Ant-Man, Marvel wanted a more brand-friendly picture, and they got it from Peyton Reed. But Reed also delivered a solid movie. One can criticize 'Ant-Man' for being too similar to the plot of the original 'Iron Man', but it still works. 'The Force Awakens' is very similar to 'A New Hope', but it still works. A retread of old material can work, if you bring something unique, either to the plot, or to the characters. Whedon didn't do that. He held on to his darlings as tightly as he could, and he turned in a half-finished movie. And that is why it doesn't work.


FINAL SCORE - 6/10

Captain America and most of the Avengers will be seen starting tomorrow night in the insanely anticipated kick off to Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, 'Avengers 2.5 - The Stark Knight'...I mean, 'Captain America: Civil War'. Shit looks tight, yo.